port_getRetrieve detailed port information from LibreNMS by providing a port ID. Use this to query specific port attributes for monitoring and management.
Get port info from LibreNMS by port ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port_id | Yes | Port ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema already communicate, such as returned data scope, error behavior, or any special constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is economical and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves some guidance gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter with rich annotations and an output schema, this description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it is vague about what 'port info' includes and does not help an agent choose among the many port-related sibling tools, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter port_id is documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the 'by port ID' concept without adding semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('port info'), a source ('LibreNMS'), and a lookup key ('by port ID'). It is clear enough to understand the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like device_ports_get or port_graph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ports_list, ports_search, or device_ports_get. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing, so an agent must infer usage from the name and parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.